Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post - Aid Money

Magness · 11-27-2001, 11:18 PM

quote:

Originally posted by Ron_Bman:

I have to admit, the "flat tax rate" was one of the main reasons I voted for H. Ross Perot in '88 and '92.

I know, wasted votes . If I had thought Bush would lose to Clinton in '88, I would not have voted Independant.

Ron,

I think I could agrue that it was not a wasted vote for a couple of reasons.

1. There's no guarantee that enough of the Perot voters that might have otherwise voted for Bush Sr. would have been enough to turn the election.

2. I think that it's arguable that Perot considerable presense in the election actually did make an impact on Congress over the decade since the 1992 election. Considerably more attention was paid to balancing the Federal budget than might have been done otherwise. True, the 1994 Congressional election also had a major impact.

A few years back, I was nightschool getting my CIS degree and I did a term paper on the impact of 3rd parties on presidential elections. Even for a political junkie like myself, it was quite interesting.

It turns out that the effect is not that the 3rd parties have any real chance of winning. In fact, when a 3rd party makes a large enough impact, what has happened historically in every case is that one or both of the parties will reassess the situation and try to make policy changes within their party to lure back those voters.

In the case of Perot, he was ideologically actually between the two parties. Therefore, both parties felt that they had a chance to lure voters to their side and both attempted to do so. Being between the 2 parties was a bit unusual. In 1968, George Wallace was actually to the right of both parties. In 1948, Henry Wallace was to the left of both parties. In 1912, I think that Teddy Roosevelt (running under the Bullmoose "progressive party" banner for a 3rd term) was between the 2 parties.

Regardless, "successful" 3rd party campaigns indicate a substantial level of dissatisfaction in the voting populace that one or both parties end up feeling must be responded to so as to get those voters support in the next election.

11-27-2001, 11:18 PM	#134
Magness Quintesson Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Manchester, NH, USA Posts: 1,025	quote: Originally posted by Ron_Bman: I have to admit, the "flat tax rate" was one of the main reasons I voted for H. Ross Perot in '88 and '92. I know, wasted votes . If I had thought Bush would lose to Clinton in '88, I would not have voted Independant. Ron, I think I could agrue that it was not a wasted vote for a couple of reasons. 1. There's no guarantee that enough of the Perot voters that might have otherwise voted for Bush Sr. would have been enough to turn the election. 2. I think that it's arguable that Perot considerable presense in the election actually did make an impact on Congress over the decade since the 1992 election. Considerably more attention was paid to balancing the Federal budget than might have been done otherwise. True, the 1994 Congressional election also had a major impact. A few years back, I was nightschool getting my CIS degree and I did a term paper on the impact of 3rd parties on presidential elections. Even for a political junkie like myself, it was quite interesting. It turns out that the effect is not that the 3rd parties have any real chance of winning. In fact, when a 3rd party makes a large enough impact, what has happened historically in every case is that one or both of the parties will reassess the situation and try to make policy changes within their party to lure back those voters. In the case of Perot, he was ideologically actually between the two parties. Therefore, both parties felt that they had a chance to lure voters to their side and both attempted to do so. Being between the 2 parties was a bit unusual. In 1968, George Wallace was actually to the right of both parties. In 1948, Henry Wallace was to the left of both parties. In 1912, I think that Teddy Roosevelt (running under the Bullmoose "progressive party" banner for a 3rd term) was between the 2 parties. Regardless, "successful" 3rd party campaigns indicate a substantial level of dissatisfaction in the voting populace that one or both parties end up feeling must be responded to so as to get those voters support in the next election.